4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Košice.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
6.  In 1998 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against an individual.
7.  On 9 June 2000 the Košice I District Office of Investigation commenced an investigation against the latter in relation to damage allegedly caused to the applicant.
8.  On 22 June 2000 the Košice I District Office of Investigation heard the applicant who in his statement claimed damages of 220,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK).
9.  The accussed was indicted before the Košice I District Court on 26 September 2000.
10.  Between October 2000 and June 2002 the District Court scheduled nineteen hearings. Nine hearings were adjourned on the ground of the failure of the accused or his attorney to appear, whereby in some cases the reasons for their absence were not supported by any evidence. Four hearings had to be adjourned due to one of the chamber's member's illness and two hearings were adjourned due to absence of a witness.
11.  On 17 December 2001 the District Court joined the proceedings with a different criminal case concerning the same accused.
12.  On 5 June 2002 the District Court convicted the accused of an offence and ordered him to pay SKK 220,000 to the applicant in compensation for damage.
13.  On 30 October 2002 the court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment.
14.  In the subsequent period from February 2003 until February 2006 twelve hearings were scheduled out of which ten had to be adjourned due to absence of the accused or his attorney. At several hearings both the attorney and the accused failed to inform the court of the reasons for their absence.
15.  On 1 July 2005 the President of the Košice I District Court, in reply to the applicant's complaint of the length of the proceedings, admitted that the proceedings had lasted a long time, which was due to absence of the accused and illness of one member of a chamber. However, the President found that there were no subjective delays attributable to the court.
16.  On 10 November 2005 the District Court requested an expert opinion relating to the state of health of the accused with regard to his ability to attend a hearing.
17.  On 22 February 2006 a hearing took place at which the accused refused to give a statement.
18.  On 4 April 2006, after the accused had failed to appear before the court for the hearing scheduled for 27 March 2006, the District Court issued a warrant for his arrest.
19.  On 19 April 2006 the warrant was quashed since the accused had proved that he had been ill at the time of the hearing.
20.  On 22 May and 21 June 2006 the District Court adjourned the hearing as the attorney of the accused and the accused failed to appear.
21.  From June 2006 until October 2006 the District Court sent several inquiries to the doctor of the accused including a request for a second expert opinion relating to the state of health of the accused with regard to his ability to attend a hearing.
22.  On 15 October 2007 a hearing took place. On 15 November 2007, after the accused had failed to appear before the court for the hearing scheduled for 7 November 2007, the District Court issued a new warrant for his arrest.
23.  On 25 January 2008 the accused was remanded in custody.
24.  On 12 March 2008 the accused was found guilty of fraud and ordered to pay an amount of money in compensation for damage to the injured parties including the applicant. The prosecutor appealed.
25.  On 23 October 2008 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
26.  On 18 August 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings before the Košice I District Court. The Constitutional Court found that the right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay did not extend to the applicant's claim for compensation filed in the context of criminal proceedings against a third person. Furthermore, it was open to the applicant to submit his claim to a civil court. Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution would apply to such civil proceedings.